Randal has been aggressive about making recommendations for technology advancement. This is promising. His drive just needs to be harnessed by an alpha. This is why you confront him man to man and don't act like his comment hurt your feelings. Put him in his place but also try to understand where he's coming from and see if you can learn anything from his criticism.

passage says Randall is an 'expert' and he deems you not likely to improve. His mindset is that you are a dumb ass and his teachings are worthless because you can't grasp the concepts. Talking with him won't do a thing. Take it up with the boss and fire his ass.

If he's an expert then maybe he's right and I need to work harder to grasp those concepts. I'm willing to hear him out because it's important to the company's success that I learn these things.

He's also just being a pussy, bitching about his boss to his underlings, which is not that uncommon. He just needs to know his ass is on thin ice, and he should just come to me if he has criticism. If he shapes up, then I've got a motivated employee who feels comfortable communicating openly with me because he knows I can take criticism.

Not to mention the costs involved in firing an employee and hiring a new one.

If the question is which is less effective management, A or C, then A is clearly less effective because you're not managing shit. You're just bringing your problem to your superior, which should be a last resort.

Management in America is sometimes inefficient but we have it down to a science in many ways.

No idea what you're talking about. You can get a B.S. in Management. Businesses are willing to spend a lot of money for studies on this type of shit because it makes them money to be more efficient, so there is plenty of science out there on it. If I'm wrong and you've got the answer to the question, I'd love to see it because, as an effective manager, I'm open to criticism ;-)

Women on the other hand are unable to take criticism. I've seen so many women cry at work when confronted with criticism, even from their underlings. Women also always exacerbate workplace drama. A great way to do this is to get more people involved. Going to the CEO over what someone said behind your back also makes you look like a pussy.

Are you taking into account the costs of firing Randal and hiring a new expert? It should be a last resort. If he's been a problem in the past I'd say sure go ahead and fire him, but I think it'd be more effective management to at least try to straighten him out first.

Randall isn't an employee. Clearly he is just an independent contractor hired to do something very specific. Do you know the difference between an employee and an independent contractor? The former requires training on part of the company; the latter doesn't require training.

Unless "assigned" in some way implies that he's a contractor, in no way is it clear that he's an independent contractor. But even if he was, the least effective option is still A, costs aside, for all my aforementioned reasons.

ok let's say your interpretation is the correct one. Answer A does;t mention firing Randall. It only says getting a new expert on your team. If Randall was assigned to your team, he could easily be removed from your team without getting fired from the company.

Depends what you do after. Letting the conflict bubble up might be the only way to confront it and solve it. If you sit down the conflict then everyone becomes scared to speak their minds. Will probably show who the real problem children are.